You don’t need to on this one. I just jumped on eBay to see if I could find the item, first generation iPhones and it was right there, offered for sales by some vendors. Some still comes with a price ranged $80-400 but others was in the range of $1.5k and below. I guess these are the once that have heard the news on what it’s going for in auctions and decided to up the price while, the once with lower prices either haven’t heard the news or are replicas. I’ve got reasons to think that the one that sold for an insane price as stated in the auction could be the prototype but, shouldn’t that be an Apple’s priceless item, well that’s the point, owning the supposedly priceless item but, it doesn’t mean much either. I would still be seeing just how much I spent to get that thing should it not be giving me some return on investment. No, the point was that it was still in its original packaging. But you can see that it is hard to understand how the original packaging makes a difference given the fact that these items circulate in the millions around the world. But why did somebody now come up with with the idea to pay $190,373 for that iPhone at a public auction? I question the intent people have to pay seemingly unjustified prices for some items. As I said, maybe the buyer has some more of those items himself and is trying to establish a certain value perception to then profit from that later down the road? Could be the same with other things like discussed here in the thread, could be many reasons. By some means, it’s a matter of getting these things to the auction house, have a baked story for it and yeah, it’s got to be original, then your sure some dude with just enough dollar to not have needs for it would pick it up as his or her collection. That's the point. Once you got it to the auction house, the item gets the visibility needed to draw attention from some guy who has been looking for whatever reason for this particular item. In a best case scenario there are two guys, but the thing is that auctions enfold this dynamic among people who have initially not even been interested in that item. But once someone says price A, someone else rich enough might feel tempted to give it a shot, too. |
|
|
|
A very important event is scheduled to happen this April. Around April 16 or 17. It's bitcoin halving again. i.e. number of bitcoin rewarded for mining a block would be halved. It meas half bitcoin reward for equal task for miner. That would also decrease the liquidity in bitcoin provided by the miners. The miners operate on small margin and many could go on loss if they sold their reward for current price so they won't be willing to sell it unless price moves up. Bitcoin in past have seen a good price boost after the halving. And many prediction models place the future price of bitcoin into 190K.
Is 190K too humble or very generous in your consideration? What's your price plans for selling your holdings?
Every time I read a post or an interview or see a video where someone presents a prediction, whether based on a model or just opinion, I think it makes the person no more trustworthy because they choose something very specific like "190K". I mean what's the point of not saying 200K and there you go it, that's what I believe. Instead, I mean 190K is at least an integer... There is one level below that and that's the people who say "I believe in 7.5 months from now BTC will be at 190,075.43 dollars". If BTC had been following very clear models or some model that somebody has secretly at home, there is no reason for that person to give a model away that has so much predictive value. |
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $60,478
|
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $60,478
|
|
|
|
|
Second prediction: $60,478
|
|
|
|
-
This is an interesting discussion to have, but I doubt there are any reliable frameworks to come up with a "true and fair" value. At the end of the day, it only needs one freakish investor down the line who wants that piece of paper from you and is willing to pay 3 times the price. I am sure that most of us here have been shocked at times reading how much people are willing to pay for the weirdest items. One example: First-generation iPhone sells at auction for $190,373, or nearly 380 times its original priceIf I had ever thought that this would one day be possible, I'd have stocked up on those iPhones. I believe this things like the paper you mentioned can indeed have value. But how much? I stopped being shocked about collectible items or historical papers and how much they can make you in an auction. To anticipate values is so difficult because as a response some people will collect some electronics out of principle just to realize that those items will never be as valuable as this aforementioned iPhone generation. I think it could be dependent on the narrative that you yourself could put out in public. If there was an auction of a pokemon card, isn't there huge incentive for the pokemon inventor (company or whoever) to go there and pay an absurd price? Stuff is all over the place in the media and people start buying these cards hoping they get lucky or something. I had still been giving a lot of thoughts to this topic and I still feel that this wasn't a coincident or just some show off of wealth, I think he was trying to pass a message of BITCOIN IS THE BEST or get normal folks to see some kind of reason to get bitcoin, note he didn't pay in fait, I still believe that bitcoin is a better kind of money than fait and any wealth folk would already know that it's better to pay in fait than in bitcoin, ikay yeah if he didn't have any money around, its woudl be so easy for him to write a check or maybe a loan from the bank and that would be so easy for him, but rather he chose to pay in bitcoin, and what woudl do you think of that?, to me a it's a word of advice, if you want to get rich, BUY BITCOIN. Well, in this case you could also argue the other way around and ask "why did he choose to give away some of his precious Bitcoin and didn't instead use fiat to show that people should get rid of their fiat and rather buy anything related to Bitcoin?" Either way, El duderino_ was more referring to the question how to determine whether a certain value, a price paid for a collectible of that sort. I think it's dangerous to go for something because someone else did in a very unique case as you don't know who the person is. Someone could have bought a rare version of a paper or magazine he already owned and has some more lying around. Or whether it is someone who absolutely doesn't care what a piece costs when they want it. That skewes price efficiency for the average guy. |
|
|
|
The promising approach about the rising of Bitcoin price seemly to have emotional influence on investors which at some points triggers market sentiments.
Who has observed that the speculations and predictions of Bitcoin price has gone silence since the market went DIP after the halving?
Sentiments are a major part of markets, an integreal part. That is particularly valid when it's about complex assets like Bitcoin as nobody can truly tell what it is worth as it doesn't generate cashflows. One can only guess and the more you understand about Bitcoin, the higher you will value it and the less you will get nervous when there is trouble going on in the world. But rest assured that not a lot of people who own Bitcoin actually understand a lot about it. But with more people getting into the market and spending more time to understand it, the base layer price will only become more stable. |
|
|
|
- would it be worth more as this Einstein note over time? https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/einstein-handwritten-notes-auction/index.html*In terms of FIAT not in terms of 16 BTC ... I mean in terms of FIAT stricktly, would it be a good investment comparing with a paper like the Einstein one or compared with a Football, Pokemon card etc It seems to be a historical collectible just like the newspaper where BTC was mentioned for the first time...( I do remember an auction for the paper was held on this forum, but can't find the link anymore, if someone can add it in this thread its merit worthy imo...) Could this BTC outperform a lot of them? It could act like a cool piece on the wall, but better like some famous paintings etc?? Pieces with historical mentionings got value, but whats the correct price or how can we value a specific paper like this one and which will follow this Buy Bitcoin paper in the future? There gotta be more of them... This is an interesting discussion to have, but I doubt there are any reliable frameworks to come up with a "true and fair" value. At the end of the day, it only needs one freakish investor down the line who wants that piece of paper from you and is willing to pay 3 times the price. I am sure that most of us here have been shocked at times reading how much people are willing to pay for the weirdest items. One example: First-generation iPhone sells at auction for $190,373, or nearly 380 times its original priceIf I had ever thought that this would one day be possible, I'd have stocked up on those iPhones. I believe this things like the paper you mentioned can indeed have value. But how much? I stopped being shocked about collectible items or historical papers and how much they can make you in an auction. To anticipate values is so difficult because as a response some people will collect some electronics out of principle just to realize that those items will never be as valuable as this aforementioned iPhone generation. I think it could be dependent on the narrative that you yourself could put out in public. If there was an auction of a pokemon card, isn't there huge incentive for the pokemon inventor (company or whoever) to go there and pay an absurd price? Stuff is all over the place in the media and people start buying these cards hoping they get lucky or something. |
|
|
|
Could it be true? Is there any way to check if those companies actually have the real thing?
I don't think it could be true just because it's so easy to have your reserves checked, it seems like in China they would be putting people to death for doing this. That doesn't mean that some companies aren't trying it, but I don't think it's happening at the scale you seem to be insinuating. In the end though these games won't work. At some point someone will have to show their Bitcoin reserves and when companies are tasked with their leaders going to jail or having to spot buy BTC to the moon, they'll do what they're supposed to do and run the price up. This would be the type of event that would send BTC to a million. Don't fear it. Right and I said in this post that it depends on how regulation is set up in different countries, but I am convinced in most countries there has to be a proof of reserve and it is indeed very easy to do for Bitcoin whereas difficult to verify when it's about thin air fiat money. Numbers get checked from auditors in the case of fiat money as well, but they have other constructs and asset classes that sometimes make it difficult to come up with a true and fair view. But there could be one back door and this is when companies are allowed to secure positions in one asset class with reserves from another asset class. They would make it overly complicated again, as it is already actually. But if the exposure can clearly be calculated, proof of reserves is either on point or it is not. I hope it works that way. |
|
|
|
|
ID: 1286791
45 - Dump3er
46 - Dump3er
|
|
|
|
In this era of inflation when the price of every commodity is skyrocketing and the value of our domestic currency investments is decreasing. Desperation covers us as the damage continues to mount. In this case Bitcoin is the only hope for small investors like us. DCAing allows small investors to accumulate bitcoins at weekly or monthly basis which is a very simple process. Although I am a newbie investor here, the bitcoin price chart of the past years excites me. I'm more optimistic when I see that the impact of inflation does not affect the Bitcoin price as much.
What is your assessment and openion? How much of an impact does inflation have on Bitcoin?
No doubt, like any other asset, Bitcoin has helped to hedge against inflation in the past, but with the current status of the coin, I do not think it would be easy anymore. Take for instance, if you buy Bitcoin at $65,000 and the inflation in your country bites to the point that the goods you want to buy or the service you want to purchase has truly skyrocketed to at least 4 times as it is currently happening in my country, whereas Bitcoin could only move to $125,000. What do you do? This obviously cannot hedge the inflation, but as an investment, if it moves higher for at least a reasonable degree, it will still help the person to limit the effect of the inflation and it depends on the performance of Bitcoin at the time. And I must advise you, do not invest in Bitcoin simply because of its past history, it may fail you and a good investment warning forbids that. You should invest in it because you believe in it, that's better in case anything bad happens. Bitcoin enjoyed its low price then and the early investors were so lucky, but at this time when the price is somewhat high, extreme care is needed to avoid issues. Well explained and the question is whether Bitcoin acted like a hedge against inflation because people saw it like a hedge or whether Bitcoin had this amazing development because it was a new technology. I still think it has hedge potential because it has good chances to continue to grow. But I remember when the crisis hit in early 2020, it seemed to cause uncertainty among people as to whether or not it would be the right decision to hold Bitcoin. To put it differently, if a crisis hits really hard, would people find themselves forced to liquidate an asset like Bitcoin in order to pay for whatever they have to pay in life? Mortgages, insurances, rent, food, car repairs etc. I think for those who can afford to hold Bitcoin, it is an excellent asset to hold as a counter to inflation because of its growth potential, but there will be people who may choose to liquidate Bitcoin first when they get into trouble. |
|
|
|
If it was as simple as that  I think Bitcoin is more complex than that and speaking of a pattern when there are only less than a hand full of data points is a bit problematic. But I think that the real long term considerations do make sense. Unless the globe will be blown up by a nuclear war, Bitcoin is likely to thrive further. Every single bit can accumulatively make a difference, but one of the important pieces of the puzzle is a second layer solution that allows for Bitcoin to be more broadly used in my opinion. Big players will park their Bitcoin anyway and they don't care when the fee is 50 USD to send Bitcoin from A to B, but countless of people have their money stuck. It doesn't really allow for a Bitcoin economy to thrive. The halvings should have less of an effect over time I think. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
